| |||||||||||||
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:25 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) by jeroen Parent article: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Too bad this comment thread just seems to be about name-calling. My guess is that if the FSF produces a license that is acceptable to enough of the big players (e.g. Sun, for Java and Solaris; developers of other interesting projects), we'll probably wind up seeing an evolutionary approach that will work things out for those who still have problems, and we'll see "GPL v2 or any later version" code more and more, possibly motivated by non-ideological folks who just want to share code between Linux and Solaris kernels. As GPLv3 code becomes more common and the world doesn't end, the battle will cool off. And maybe we'll wind up seeing the Linux kernel have GPLv3 parts with a special exception striking the anti-DRM language. Many of the corporate contributors might like that a whole lot, since they generally prefer the draft GPLv3 patent language to the GPLv2 patent language. Or maybe we won't and the Linux kernel will stay GPLv2. It's not really all that big a deal.
(Log in to post comments)
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:32 UTC (Fri) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] Or maybe we won't and the Linux kernel will stay GPLv2. It's not really all that big a deal.As has been stated lots of times before, Linus doesn't have the power to change the kernel license. He could of course change the license on the parts of the code that he wrote, like everybody else who contributed to the kernel. But for the whole kernel to change licenses, every contributor would have to agree. And that's just unlikely to happen.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 18:05 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """But for the whole kernel to change licenses, every contributor would have to agree. And that's just unlikely to happen."""
Some of the contributors are dead. Their benefactors control the license... if they had a proper will. If they didn't... then what?
It's not so much a matter of unlikely. It's a matter of how long it would take to sort out all the legal mess.
And a license change would permanently weaken Linux's legal position.
With SCO, badly as their case has gone, it has taken *years*, with no evidence(!), and the thing hasn't even made it to trial yet.
Do you really want to open the door to another "SCO Case", or even several?
Except that in these future "Linux license change" cases, the opposition might really *have* a case.
Changing the Linux Kernel license would almost certainly precipitate such an ugly situation. I, for one, do not want to see it.
Whether GPLv2 or GPLv3 is superior, and I will refrain from giving my opinion here... a license change for the Linux kernel is a really bad idea.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 1:36 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I've said it before, but I'll say it again because I think it's a cool idea.
If a project is GPLv2, but would like to upgade to GPLv3 then one of the big things they could would be to either dual license it GPLv2 and GPLv3 or add a exception to the GPLv3 for backward compatability.
This would be to show people that if your moving to GPLv3 that your not doing it to force anybody and it wouldn't require other projects to move to GPLv3 in order to remain compatable. This should avoid a lot of fights.
Also if the GPLv3 turns out to be a flop in practice then this enables you to go back to GPLv2 if you have to without headaches.
Then if/when the GPLv3 becomes widely adopted and there is no longer any sort of compatability problems with other people's software and such then you can move to pure GPLv3 and then get all the benifits of the updates to the license.
I think that this would allow a nice transition from one to another. It may take a few years to get it all the way done, but I think that will be worth it to avoid project forking and infighting.
Much in the same way that my computer is 64bit, but retains 32bit compatability. There is a few issues that cause me to need to have some 32bit applications but that is getting less and less important everyday and eventually it will just stop mattering.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 11:20 UTC (Fri) by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742) [Link] >If a project is GPLv2, but would like to upgade to GPLv3 then one of the big things they could would be to either dual license it GPLv2 and GPLv3 or add a exception to the GPLv3 for backward compatability.It is much easier, just release your code as "GPLv2 or later" so everyone can choose to use GPLv2 or GPLv3 and you don't need special execptions etc.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 12:47 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well the point is to move gradually to the GPLv3 license.
This way you can make sure that everybody involved in the project would be onboard for it because you know would know that anybody contributing code will understand that it will probably be under the GPLv3 license eventually.
This will give time for people to mull it over and give time for the real-world effect of the GPLv3 to sink in instead of jumping full bore into it and pressuring people to make a desicion right away.
Plus you would have people who contribute code to your project do it under the same dual license so that the patent language goes into effect.
Another variation of the idea would be to release the project tarballs and binaries under the GPLv3, but have a linking exception with GPLv2 code as well as make it project policy that if a GPLv2 licensed project would like to use source code then that would be fine.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 14:09 UTC (Fri) by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742) [Link] >This way you can make sure that everybody involved in the project would be onboard for it because you know would know that anybody contributing code will understand that it will probably be under the GPLv3 license eventually. [..] Plus you would have people who contribute code to your project do it under the same dual licenseI don't see the difference if you say to a contributor: "You have to dual-license your code under GPLv2 and GPLv3", "You have to license you code under GPLv3 plus my special backward clause" or "You have to license you code under GPLv2 or later". You always have to ask contributors for a special license and you always achieve the same but using "GPLv2 or later" is imho the easiest and most common way.
GPL 3: What is the fuss all about? Posted Jan 26, 2007 15:46 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] don't see the difference if you say to a contributor: "You have to dual-license your code under GPLv2 and GPLv3", "You have to license you code under GPLv3 plus my special backward clause" or "You have to license you code under GPLv2 or later". There are certainly differences... "GPLv2 or v3" is not the same as "GPLv2 or later" (this would include GPLv4!), "GPLv3 + backward clause" is not the same as "GPLv2" either. Etc. And please don't lose sight of the fact that the anti-DRM provisions in GPLv2 are the problem here. I agree with Linus that if I get Linux on, say, a wireless router or any other type of appliance, I should not be automatically able to run any other junk on that machine. It is quite reasonable for the manufacturer of certain devices to restrict what they can do (it might be even mandated by law), be it by physical limits or software-enforced ones. And in the current world, where it is already much cheaper (and better) to control a washing machine or elevator by software and not mechanically, this later case will be ever more prevalent. I still can take the source code to Linux I get with such a device and run it elsewhere. Also, please do remember that GPLed software (and open source in general) is a tiny minority in all software that is out there, even more so in the areas where GPLv3 anti-DRM provisions could make some difference. Changing the license of a piece of software to prohibit some uses will make no difference whatsoever, except for making certain people feel self-important.
GPL 3: What is the fuss all about? Posted Jan 27, 2007 0:04 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well.. the 'Anti-DRM' clause isn't designed to prevent the use of DRM or discourage it.
Just like the clause stating that you have to distribute source code if your redistribute GPL'd software is not designed to try to make other people (say microsoft) open source their programs.
It's designed to protect the '4 freedoms'. It is essentially a way to attempt to enforce the idea that you can't make GPL software non-Free (by FSF/GNU's definition). Either refusal to release code or using encryption to enforce specific software versions the effect on end users is the same.
In all actuality if somebody (Sun has a project to do just this) releases open source software that is able to succcessfully impliment DRM, even if you try to modify the code, then you could license that under the GPLv3.
Also if you would like to use GPLv3 software to play back DRM content or control hardware that impliments DRM, then that is fine also.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 10, 2007 18:40 UTC (Sat) by RareCactus (guest, #41198) [Link] This whole article is a blatant troll.
The Linux kernel has always been under the GPLv2-- check COPYING at the root of the tree. After another two years, there will have been another two years' worth of contributions to the Linux kernel by various people, explicitly tagged as "GPLv2 only," because that's what Linus is now requiring.
Whatever your opinions are about the GPLv3 or any other license, it's irrelevant. The Linux kernel is under the GPLv2.
|
|||||||||||||